The recent November elections had a heavy focus on conservative fiscal policy and an emphasis on cutting “big government spending.” In light of this, “[Sen. Claire] McCaskill and fellow Democrat Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.) recently teamed up with Republican Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to introduce an earmark amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act that would impose a three-year ban on pork spending. Unlike the Senate GOP’s moratorium, this ban would be binding.” (For a good laugh, listen to Laura Ingraham’s recent interview with Sen. McCaskill.)

I don’t know what to make of this proposed legislation. On one hand, the whole notion of earmarks and pork barrel spending encourages many impractical pet projects from doofy legislators. To see their ban would send a message to the fiscally irresponsible politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who misuse (our) federal tax dollars. On the other hand, “eliminating 100 percent of earmarks in fiscal 2010 would have cut the federal budget by less than one-half of one percent.” In other words, earmarks are close to the least of our worries. My fear is that this legislation will give the American people an illusion of government fiscal restraint, while our politicians continue to spend recklessly, causing a rather unwarranted feeling of security or success.

I suppose I’m glad at the prospect of eliminating earmarks. It will probably make me less skeptical of government spending… by about .5%. I hope John Boehner has more creative ideas for his new House.

Comments

I think if you look at this issue from another angle, it makes more sense. For just .5% of government spending, why is there such resistance from Congressional Leadership (on both sides of the aisle) against getting rid of them? That's the question to ask. Once you ask it and looks closely, you see why.

Earmarks are an effective tool to manipulate Congressional voting blocks.

Take "Legislation A" that does not stand-alone well and cannot muster majority support.

Then take "Project B" that favors one group of people (say, a state or city) at the expense of all others. As a stand-alone project B could never pass legislatively if introduced alone.

But what if I told you that the way Congress does business now often leads to Legislation A passing while (and because) it includes project B?

It happens all the time and earmarks are what makes it possible.

Congressional Leadership can pass legislation that a minority wants if they will throw in pet projects (in the form of earmarks) that people who wouldn't otherwise want the legislation want. See, they can go back home and tout the fact that they got project B funded and put in place (a targeted benefit) while refusing to call attention to the bad legislation they passed (a dispersed cost).

When costs are dispersed but benefits targeted, that's where corruption and vote buying will most emerge and where special interests most come to play.

So – because of earmarks – you end up with bad legislation that includes bad and wasteful projects.

Votes are bought through earmarking grants.

It's like logrolling, but unlike traditional logrolling, it's a crack-cocaine version …

Without earmarks big, bad, costly legislation is less able to be forced through.

Get rid of earmarking, and you get rid of the "lever" through which some of our worst legislation has been passed.

[email protected] by Jim Harper [edited] :========Earmarks are not a huge part of the federal budget, but we should end them anyway. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) calls them a “gateway drug to federal spending addiction,” which is a folksy way of talking about political “log-rolling.” Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) has seen it first-hand. He explains (video 4:00) how House and Senate leaders use earmarks to buy votes on legislation they want passed.

If earmarks go away as a tool for wheeling-and-dealing in Congress, members and senators will be less likely to sell out the country as a whole with bloated spending bills and Rube-Goldberg regulatory projects for the benefit of some local interest or campaign contributor.========